Act of Valor

Rarely do pure-bred patriotic American films come along anymore.  The current military flicks are usually filled with destructive characters, government conspiracies, and the horrors of war—elements of a layered, involving anti-war film.  Here comes along Act of Valor, all but wrapped up in an American flag, showcasing ‘real active-duty Navy SEALs’ in fictional combat missions.  These men aren’t fighting a war they don’t believe in.  They don’t lack any trust in their government.  Almost unbelievably and contrary to every other mainstream action film, their government isn’t tooling them around under a sort of shadowy guise of sinister motivations and political coverups.  These fighting men are cut-and-dry American heroes saving the nation one mission at a time.

So how do I review this movie?  It’s completely two-dimensional, utilizing real commandos who make for minimalist actors when the booms aren’t going off.  Yet, this isn’t a documentary either.  To my complete surprise, the film actually has a standard narrative (Hollywood formula and all).  The story features a squad of SEALs deployed to rescue an abducted undercover CIA agent being held captive and tortured for information by a drug cartel kingpin, Christo.  The U.S. government takes further interest in Christo when they understand his connection with a group of extremist Islamic terrorists plotting a massive multiple-location attack on American soil.

Either action movies have gotten it all-too-right over the years, or Act of Valor screenwriter Kurt Johnstad (300) saw little value in ditching a completely formulaic plot involving drug cartels and an insurmountable terrorist threat.  I’ll be blunt here—this film isn’t about plot or characters or anything remotely related to storytelling.  This film is about showcasing Navy SEALs as elite patriotic warriors, not as actors.  Audiences will be captivated, as I was, by the reality and passion invested in the combat missions that usually emulate a real-life visceral version of Call of Duty gameplay.  Yes, if you are a 25-year-old devoted to that game, you will be enthralled by Act of Valor.  While I could have gone without some of the first-person view behind the crosshairs, and a little less shaky-cam within the action, I consistently believed in the threat that the filmmakers painstakingly portray with unabashed realism.

Non-gamers will appreciate this too.  Valor makes for a very heroic film that ultimately asks us to respect our soldiers rather than question their sanity and protest their manipulating government.  While the film struggles when the men are asked to ’emote’ and carry dramatic weight, especially within a continual focus on two of the main soldiers, I believe its flaws are negligible in comparison to what directors Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh are trying to do and happen to do very well—give audiences the cold hard combat they came to see.

Many critics are chastising this effort as a propaganda piece more akin to a recruiting poster than an actual movie.  However, the film never sidesteps the mortal consequences of these guys’ effort to fight for American freedom.  I can’t imagine anyone so immediately inclined to join the ranks after the film’s heartbreaking closing moments.  I don’t care if this isn’t a ‘true movie’ since its efforts are meant to shed the trappings of movies and deliver an experience instead.  Forget actors.  Forget scripts.  Grab your flag and run behind enemy lines with a courageous squad of fighters.

[Rating:3/5]

 

The Artist

The Artist is the first (almost completely) silent film since the 1920s to win the Oscar for Best Picture.  It is also the least likely winner to hit the mainstream circuit and find a broad audience.  I can only reiterate what many critics have already suggested: give the film a chance if you are so inclined.

Of course the film will not please everybody.  Current audiences aren’t merely satisfied with color and sound anymore.  They want loud bangs, bright fireballs, booming bass, and a pair of 3D glasses when the technology is used properly.  The Artist has neither color, nor sound—outside out a score accompanyment and a few select moments of audible dialogue.  How can a black and white silent film possibly compete in such a crowded market with the highest production bells and whistles?

In many ways, The Artist dazzles just the same as some of the biggest visual blockbusters.  Rooted in its characters, the film bellows a winning story about a 1920s silent Hollywood film actor, George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), on top of his iconic career as a swashbuckling star.  His marriage may be on the rocks, but he is on top of the world comercially.  He auditions a fair young dancer for his latest film, an instant stunner named Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) with whom he shares a spark.

In the midst of casting for his current production, George is introduced to a new filmmaking venture—the use of sound.  He laughs at a test reel of it, believing audiences will never buy into such a gimmick.  To his horror, his world quickly comes crashing down beneath his feet.  His wife (Penelope Ann Miller) forces him out of the house.  His producers oust him from their studio claiming the times are changing to a new world of sound. 

Letting his pride take over, George decides to fund his own wilderness adventure B-film as producer, director, and star.  The film is set to open opposite the new Peppy Miller-starring romantic comedy featuring sound.  Peppy becomes an overnight sensation, skyrocketting her to the top of the A-list.  George’s silent film becomes a colassal failure crippling his finances severely.  Within moments he is practically forgotten, forced to sell all his property via auction and move into a low-rent apartment where his self-loathing and oncoming depression consume him.  Only Peppy may be able to save George from total destruction.

The Artist serves both as a love story and as a story of redemption.  George’s character allows his pride to ruin his life.  I kept wondering why George wouldn’t at least attempt a ‘talkie’ film in an effort to save his career.  That is not who he is, and it becomes clear later on why that avenue wouldn’t suit him as well.  He’s a physical performer, engaging the audience through exaggerated facial expression and a charismatic smile.  His neglecting of his wife and quest for glory from his audience become his downfall.  He’s a man left with nothing when the credits roll on his career.

I appreciated very much the relationship developed between George and Peppy.  They create a strong chemistry without the use of words and only minimal dialogue cards.  Peppy is consistently loyal to George, even when the studio turns him away and his own wife closes the door on him.  The sensational actors, Bérénice Bejo and the now Oscar-winning Jean Dujardin, are a literal joy to watch as performers.  Dujardin as the star of the film, mugs and smiles his way into our hearts initially before tragedy befalls him.  The actor’s physical emoting carries us through his journey.

I’ll admit I was resistant to the idea of a current silent film, especially one fishing for awards.  The thought of it seemed as gimmicky as 3D.  But this is an old fashioned escape in the best sense, and the medium is almost demanded considering the setting and the subject matter where it really proves worth the risk of alienating audiences.  I’m reminded of Steven Spielberg shooting Schindler’s List in black and white.  While the subject matter may be entirely on opposite ends of the spectrum, the idea behind the filmmaking technique is not.  We are literally transported to the world that Director Michel Hazanavicius wanted to take us to.

I think he took a bold risk and made a bold film that functions much the same way as Martin Scorsese’s Hugo does for movie lovers—he reminds us why we love movies.  Their history.  Their power.  The art of the medium.  The more I recollect and think back on The Artist, the more I truly appreciate it, and the more I realize I will probably appreciate it more as time goes on.  I would advise you if you are curious about The Artist, to not be turned off by the idea of it as a silent film in black and white.  Instead, focus on the world of the film and the story that it’s telling.  If you allow yourself to get swept up by it, you won’t regret it.

[Rating:4/5]

 

Safe House

And now for a most novel idea in motion picture plotting: The CIA and other foreign government intelligence are corrupted by several bad bad bad agents.  These agents are so bad that they’ve killed innocent civilians to cover up their own double dealings and double crossings within these agencies.  Pure genius!

I’m hooked, right?  Right?

Enter Ryan Reynolds working for the CIA as Matt Weston, a young housekeeper of a ‘safe house’ designed for suspected terrorist interrogations.  He’s never even seen live field duty because he spends his time monitoring empty rooms while waiting for an interrogation party to come his way.  He also lives with a French lady friend who knows nothing of his secret government occupation.  Matt dreams of getting out of the watchdog business and into some real field work, but his mentor, operative David Barlow (Brendan Gleeson), instructs him to be patient.

His days of tossing tennis balls against a bare wall come to a halt when suspected double-agent Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) finds himself captured by the American government.  These armed men attempt to torture Frost for information on his recent shady activity involving the interception of a very important flash drive.  Frost keeps hush and smiles for more abuse.

Suddenly the safe house is breached.  Cue the large shootout.  Everyone dies except for Frost and Weston.  Weston, not knowing what to do, trusts the hierarchy above him, and attempts to transport Frost to the next safe house.  Things don’t go as planned and Weston must attempt to figure out why Mr. Frost is wanted dead by so many people if he wants to stay alive himself.

As swiftly stylized and edited as Safe House can be, almost completely mimicking a Tony Scott film, writer David Guggenheim and director Daniel Espinsosa (both first-timers) find little excitement in developing a ho-hum story.  They are preaching their ‘ideas’ as though they haven’t been sitting stale in a fridge for several weeks.  Instead, Safe House best functions as a Bourne copycat, resorting to the now-standard slice-and-dice editing style that replaces the need for believable fight choreography.

Not to say that action in Safe House is bad—it’s not.  In fact, it can be particularly thrilling.  But why?  The filmmakers have given us a Denzel Washington thriller that unwisely focuses on a boring Ryan Reynolds-played character who offers nothing in the way of audience attachment.  Since he’s not remotely interesting, and his motives for ushering around Washington’s dangerous character are purely a means of furthering the narrative, we only have the great Denzel to root for.  And I’m sorry to say it, but his villain/anti-hero fence walking never had me convinced that he was anything but a hero, despite fractured motives.  I won’t even get into his age issues—as good as he still looks for late 50s, I don’t buy him snapping necks like Bourne and dodging machine gun fire from multiple assassins.  He and Liam Neeson should think about Expendables 3.

The film is also saddled with supporting actors in Vera Farmiga, Brendan Gleeson and Sam Shepherd.  These names have side-splitting talent, and wouldn’t you know they’re wasted on one-note characters?  Perhaps Gleeson gets a little more to do here, but ultimately this megawatt cast has been assembled to deliver by-the-numbers action and story that is only elevated by the fact that we have these actors that are far better than the material would have you believe.

If I’m making Safe House sound awful, I apologize.  It’s not.  Since I recognize that I’m continually veering into negative-town here, I will attest I didn’t have a bad time at the film.  It’s adequately shot, very violent, gritty, just not for any particular engaging reason.  The movie gets a pass because the actors elevate it and make it plenty watchable, even if it’s plenty forgettable.  Ignore the ads.  Safe House is plenty safe, but you won’t have a bad time.

[Rating:3/5]

 

2012 Academy Awards Liveblog!

Trailer-Based Predictions for the 84th Oscars

Well, Oscar time is upon us once again.

It seems like everyone has something to say about their Academy Award predictions, and having, sadly, seen so few of this year’s nominees, I don’t really have a lot to throw behind my predictions. However, I have seen the trailers for all of the nominees, so here’s my trailer-based predictions for this year’s Oscars. (A * denotes my selection for my class competition.)

UPDATE: I have added the Actual Winners as they are announced, and if different than my predictions, my response.

My accuracy rating for this year: 19 out of 24 categories correct. (80%) Not my best, not my worst. A special congratulations to Juan in 2nd Hour, and Gabriella and Briana in 3rd Hour for most correct predictions in the film classes.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Get ready to hear this title and an excerpt from the score over and over and over...

BEST PICTURE
Who Will Probably Win: The Artist *
Who I Think Should Win: The Artist
Actual Winner: The Artist

This thing is a juggernaut. It’s this year’s Return of the King. Based on the trailer, it’s a clever concept for a modern-day film, to play off the films of the silent era. I like that, so I agree.

BEST DIRECTOR
Who Will Probably Win: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist *
Who I Think Should Win: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Actual Winner: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

As much as I’ve heard amazing things about Scorsese’s Hugo, he already has his Oscar, and half of predicting is feeling out the politics of the game. Even Omaha native Alexander Payne already has his Oscar. And Woody Allen… I still haven’t forgiven you for Annie Hall besting Star Wars in 1977. I can’t be the only one who sees that all his characters are simply more attractive actors playing a variation of Woody Allen. Odds are, since the two categories only occasionally split, this one will go to the newcomer, especially with all the buzz around The Artist.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Dujardin radiates charisma. (Note the visible radiation.)

BEST ACTOR
Who Will Probably Win: Jean Dujardin, The Artist *
Who I Think Should Win: Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Actual Winner: Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Clooney has his. Pitt has several past noms, but Moneyball is not the film to finally clinch it for him. Oldman is amazing, but I don’t think this will carry enough with voters, and really I don’t know that this role is necessarily the one deserving of the Oscar. Demian Bichir gives a stirring performance in the trailer, but again, not known enough to beat down the momentum Dujardin has built up.

 

 ______________________________________________________________________________

This look seems to say "Between me and Glenn? It won't even be Close."

BEST ACTRESS
Who Will Probably Win: Viola Davis, The Help *
Who I Think Should Win: Viola Davis, The Help
Actual Winner: Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady

This is where the Academy will make up for giving Supporting Actress to Penelope Cruz in 2009. Davis’ performance carries the trailer, so I can only imagine it does the same in the film. One might think Glenn Close would get some love with this being her 6th nomination without a win… but I don’t think Albert Nobbs will do it for her. Maybe lucky number 7 will be her winning charm.

Response to Winner: Well… there’s that I guess. Sure Meryl has been nominated 17 times, but she’s also won twice. I mean, Streep does capture Margaret Thatcher quite well, but still. Sounds to me like the Academy is trying to make up for 14 losses with one more win, figuring Davis will be back in the future. That’s Academy politics for you. But maybe I’ll be surprised after watching the full films and agree with the decision. Time will tell.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

It's the year of the vibrant old-timer!

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Who Will Probably Win: Christopher Plummer, Beginners *
Who I Think Should Win: Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Actual Winner: Christopher Plummer, Beginners

First of all, how the heck did Jonah Hill even get a nomination? Seriously? I could probably sync the audio from the Moneyball trailer to his physical performance in the trailer for Night at the Museum 2 and not even notice. Lame, Academy. Nolte… yeah we’ve all seen the grizzled father/coach character before. You’re an Omaha boy, so I give you props there, but not the prediction. Branagh is great, but nothing award-worthy here. I had to actually double check to make sure Max Von Sydow and Christopher Plummer were not the same person. They both fit the same character type. But based on the trailer, Plummer actually talks in his film, and is one of the major characters, so I have to lean toward him.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Seriously, I tried to find a picture where Octavia wasn't making this face... no luck.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Who Will Probably Win: Octavia Spencer, The Help *
Who I Think Should Win: Octavia Spencer, The Help
Actual Winner: Octavia Spencer, The Help

Here again, Melissa McCarthy? For an OSCAR nomination? The Academy has traditionally snubbed comedies for its awards, and to see a nominee whose stand-out moments in the trailer include not being sure whether gas escaping from her body was a belch or fart, and talking about staging their own fight club…. it makes me think they need to be more selective in how they include comedies. Although Bejo gives a cutesy performance, I think Spencer was a very enjoyable element of the trailer for The Help. She hugged people a lot. She gets my vote.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Maybe if he wins, he can use some of that fame and fortune to see a chiropractor.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Who Will Probably Win: Rango *
Who I Think Should Win: Chico & Rita
Actual Winner: Rango

Sadly Pixar released its weakest film to date this year (seriously, Mater is the Jar Jar Binks of the Pixar universe), so with only Cars 2 representing, it opened the field for others. Seems like the buzz goes to Rango, although I’m a little over Johnny Depp, so that puts a little bad taste in my mouth. Really I thought the European contenders were more interesting in their style, although I can’t vouch for the storylines. I had no idea what was happening in Cat in Paris since the trailer was in French, but the animation style of Chico & Rita was the most interesting.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

This poster makes it look like she wants to leave her husband because of his horrible singing.

BEST FOREIGN FILM
Who Will Probably Win: A Separation, Iran *
Who I Think Should Win: A Separation, Iran
Actual Winner: A Separation, Iran

The trailer for Bullhead was extremely weird. It had that “art for the sake of art” feel about it. Footnote looks like it would be the most enjoyable to watch, but that’s not enough to win an Oscar. In Darkness is about the Holocaust, which makes it the best contender for an upset. Monsier Lazhar is about a teacher, and although I am one, we’ve all seen the “new teacher steps in and turns the class around” film before, so it’s nothing new or noteworthy. Not only did A Separation also get a Screenplay nod, it comes from a country which has a lot of global issues surrounding it.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: Kids, don't try this at home!

BEST ART DIRECTION & BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Who Will Probably Win: Hugo *
Who I Think Should Win: Hugo
Actual Winner: Hugo

These two categories are where the Academy will and should show Hugo some love. The visuals in the trailer were stunning, and the look and feel it establishes really throws back to the early 1900s they were going for.

 

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Despite this frightening optical illusion, it's really an elegant film of dancing!

BEST DOCUMENTARY
Who Will Probably Win: Pina *
Who I Think Should Win: Pina
Actual Winner: Undefeated

Documentaries always seem so serious or depressing, but Pina has a unique and refreshing approach with all its fancy dancing. It had the only trailer that didn’t make me feel like I was watching the news.

Response to Winner: Really? I thought the “inner-city football team with a crappy record that turns it around to grow not only as a team, but as people” storyline was already played out ever since Remember the Titans. Apparently the concept still has a few more awards left in it. I’m disappointed to see something so unconventional and unique as Pina leaving empty handed to an almost cliche idea.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Ah the love between a boy and his horse... the PG kind of love.

BEST SOUND EDITING AND MIXING
Who Will Probably Win: Hugo
Who I Think Should Win: War Horse *
Actual Winner: Hugo

Political predictions would tell us that Hugo is going to pick up some sympathy nods in categories to compensate for The Artist sweeping everything else. Sound may be a place that this happens. However, I’d wager War Horse has a good shot with all its battle scenes and that sweeping John Williams score. Transformers, although cool sounding, has already had its day, and the others just don’t have enough going on… although Drive could be a potential dark horse in sound editing.

Response to Winner: I called it, but regrettably voted otherwise for the class competition. Again, I haven’t seen Hugo, so I’ll be curious to see if the sound truly is all that amazing comparatively, or if this was just a “sorry about Best Picture” consolation prize.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Rumor has it Sirkis based his performance for Caesar on the salad of the same name. #untruefacts

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Who Will Probably Win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes *
Who I Think Should Win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Actual Winner: Hugo

One word – Caesar. That will do it. Sirkis didn’t get his acting nom, but the effects still sell it. Transformers has been done, Real Steel is a rehash of Transformers, Hugo wasn’t effects-heavy enough, and HPDH2 was heavy enough, but it is the 8th film in the series.

Response to Winner: Well, color me surprised. I figured the motion capture work in Rise… was good enough to take it. Apparently Hugo must be the most technically amazing movie ever (at least this year), as it’s sweeping the technical categories.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

The epitome of book worm.

BEST SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)
Who Will Probably Win: The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore *
Who I Think Should Win: A Morning Stroll
Actual Winner: The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

Fantastic… Lessmore is definitely the most solid and comfortable choice, with its quality 3D work and clever looking story elements. The trailer for Morning Stroll, albeit quite abbreviated since it’s a trailer for a short film, had the most unique animation style of all the nominees. I would have liked to see it shake things up with that crazy multi-dimensional chicken.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

With only 6 days to live, this guy has some stuff to blow up and a tuba to play.

BEST SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)
Who Will Probably Win: Tuba Atlantic *
Who I Think Should Win: Tuba Atlantic
Actual Winner: The Shore

Tuba Atlantic was the only one of these trailers to make me actually laugh and want to watch it. Time Freak looks quirky, but in a wannabe-Groundhog Day kind of way that seemed far too amateur for the Oscars. The others just didn’t stand out enough in my mind.

Response to Winner: To be fair, The Shore did have a pretty solid trailer, and had sort of an Academy-worthy feel to it, so I don’t really feel opposed to this winner, I just liked Tuba Atlantic better – probably because I have a soft spot for dying old people in movies.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Frankly I think Jason Segel is a little of both.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Who Will Probably Win: “Man or Muppet”, from The Muppets *
Who I Think Should Win: “Man or Muppet”, from The Muppets
Actual Winner: “Man or Muppet”, from The Muppets

I saw the music videos for both these songs, and “Man or Muppet” definitely got stuck in my head the most. Plus it had Jim Parsons playing the human version of a Muppet, which is pretty accurate and hilarious. I’m a little sad these songs won’t be performed, as both would have a pretty interesting stage presence. Frankly I was just happy Randy Newman had no chance to win another Oscar this year.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

You're going to hear excerpts from this a lot as people walk up to the stage.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Who Will Probably Win: The Aritst *
Who I Think Should Win: War Horse
Actual Winner: The Artist

I’m a collector of movie scores. The orchestral music underneath the film is what sells the emotional state to me, so this category is probably one of my favorites. It’s also extremely tricky for me to call. Williams is against himself in the category for Tintin and War Horse, but Tintin didn’t hook me. Hugo isn’t Shore’s best, and he’s won plenty before. Tinker had a really cool unique sound to it, sort of a blues meets The Matrix vibe to it, but this is a little offbeat for the Academy. The Artist brings a unique composer with a pleasant sound, and in light of Williams’ multitude of Oscars already on his shelf, will probably take it. War Horse was the most moving of all the pieces I heard, and I’m a Williams fan, but Johnny-boy has his trophies, time for someone else to enjoy the moment.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

CATEGORIES I DON’T HAVE A STRONG OPINION ON:

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAYMidnight in Paris *
Actual Winner: Midnight in Paris
Alright Allen, you can have it.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY The Descendants *
Actual Winner: The Descendants
Same goes for you Payne & Co.

BEST COSTUME DESIGNThe Artist *
Actual Winner: The Artist
Usually goes to a period piece, but they’re all period pieces. Shot in the dark here, could go to Hugo.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORTSaving Face *
Actual Winner: Saving Face
Again, sad, serious documentaries, but this one seems to have a stronger emotional tug.

BEST MAKEUPThe Iron Lady*
Actual Winner: The Iron Lady
Here again, HP has had its day, and although Albert Nobbs turned Glenn Close into a man… well… she was halfway there on her own.

BEST FILM EDITINGThe Artist *
Actual Winner: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Could go any which way, but I’m going to throw this on The Artist sweep pile.

Response to Winner: Seems like Oscar likes the edgier stuff in this category. After Social Network last year, and Girl With the Dragon Tattoo this year, I’ll definitely be looking for the edgier piece in next year’s predictions.

———————————————————

So there you have it. My trailer-based predictions. Maybe it will help you with your own office pool or class competition, maybe it just gave you something to read. At any rate, tune in to the Oscars and see what shakes down!

The Grey

THAT’S IT ?!?!?!

I literally shouted those words at the screen when it went black after The Grey. In a full theatre, no less. I couldn’t believe it. I felt like an 18-year-old groupie who had been picked up at a night spot by director Joe Carnahan, titillated and swept off my feet with rides in sports cars and parties at private pools, enraptured in building anticipation, only to find out in bed that Carnahan has this … “little problem.”

I’m not sure I’ve ever felt this let down by a movie. Perhaps it is partly my fault for allowing my expectations to get so high. Since our daughter was born, it’s gotten much harder to get to the theater, and last weekend was the first time I had been since the Fourth of July, when I reviewed Green Lantern. But after seeing the trailers, I couldn’t wait to see The Grey. It had all the ingredients for a perfect wilderness adventure:

A group of tough guys who know a thing or two about the out doors (in this case oil-rig workers in Alaska),

A plane crash in a harsh, remote location with little hope of rescue,

A pack of very large, very hungry wolves on the hunt (the trailer made it clear this movie was not afraid of PETA),

and Liam freaking Neeson, who, in the closing seconds of the trailer, is surrounded by wolves. He tapes a bunch of empty bottles to his left hand and smashes them against a rock. Then he tapes a combat knife to his right. The Alpha wolf lunges forward, then Neeson does the same, and we see the title. I was hooked. I knew whatever happened in the moments after Neeson charged that wolf, was going to be AWESOME!

It was the perfect formula: a primal battle! Brain against brawn! Teeth against tools! What could possibly go wrong? I walked into the theatre thinking I might be about to witness the greatest man vs. beast movie since Jaws.

It starts out well enough. The plane goes down in the subarctic tundra, and John Ottway (Neeson) and six other men crawl from the wreckage. Once they pull themselves out of the shock, they begin to build a fire, make a shelter out of the plane and look for food. Their spirits have begun to lift when their dinner around the fire is interrupted by a howl. They stand up to see a huge wolf just inside the campfire light, and a sea of glittering eyes behind it. After a standoff, the wolves retreat into the darkness. A few hours later, a member of the group gets up and actually walks away from the fire to urinate. After what he’s seen, this makes no sense, but whatever; I guess it’s kind of a movie staple. He dies, of course.

The next day, Ottway, the group’s wolf expert , decides that if they can reach a forest some distance away, they could better defend themselves. On the day-long trek through knee-deep snow, they loose one more to the wolves. As night falls, they reach the forest, just as it begins to fill with the dinning and barking of the wolves. They hastily build a fire to keep the wolves at bay, then build four smaller fires to make a perimeter that they can sit inside. Ottway produces five straight branches and five shotgun shells he salvaged from the plane, and begins to instruct the others in making bang sticks to fight the wolves.

Alright. Now we’re getting somewhere.

Out of nowhere, a wolf jumps on John Diaz (Dallas Roberts), despite the fire. There follows a wild flurry of yelling, thrashing, and a couple of loud bangs, presumably bang sticks, and finally, we see Diaz on top of the wolf, thrusting his knife in and out of it. The thing is, we never really saw the fight with the wolf. So far, we’ve had a lot of great buildup and a lot of great suspense. The movie has created an atmosphere where we can never really relax, and the wolves, even when not seen, are always felt. But we really haven’t seen any good action.

But that’s okay, because the climax is going to be awesome.

This is where the movie starts to go downhill. Ottway decides for some reason that they have to move, and they go walking through this forest full of wolves in the dark. For some reason, there is never an attack, and they stop at a place where Ottway decides they will be safe. And they build ONE campfire. We’ve already seen how the wolves have become bold enough to enter the circle of fires they made earlier, but all fear of the wolves seems to have flown away for some reason. Even more strangely, the wolves seem to oblige. The next day, the group reaches a canyon and decides to climb across. They manage to attache a rope to a tree on the other side through means very hard to swallow, but whatever, it’s a movie. As the last member of the group (Durmot Mulroney) climbs across, the rope breaks and he swings across, hitting the tree hard and falling to his death. His body is then immediately pounced upon by the wolves, almost as if they were waiting at the base of the tree! Now, how did that happen? How did the wolves climb down one side of the canyon and then up the other? And even then, how did they know exactly where Mulroney was going to fall? And why hadn’t the rest of the group shouted anything to him about wolves at the base of the tree? Why did the wolves magically disappear the night before when it would’ve made sense for them to be attacking, only to reappear in such a ridiculous way here?

Let it go. The climax is going to be awesome.

Neeson poses and never delivers in “The Grey.”

The group presses on, as their number continues to dwindle. Strangely, we never hear a word about the bang sticks after that first campfire in the woods. It sounded like they used one or two during the attack at that point, but they have to have some left. The other reason this doesn’t add up is that, shortly after the plane crash, there is a scene where Ottway is attacked by a wolf. It latches onto his leg, and two other survivors run up and apparently beat the wolf to death with bits of the plane. This confirmed my impression from the trailer and set a good tone for the movie: these are tough guys. Some of them have been in prison; all of them have spent months working an oil rig in Alaska. They’re used to these elements. Even in a situation this bad, they would have a fighting chance. But now, every time the wolves show up, all they can think of to do is run. And as anyone who has spent time around dogs knows, as slim as your odds might be fighting a wolf pack, they’re going to be even slimmer running. When am I going to get what I paid for?

That’s okay. The climax is going to be awesome.

As predicted, Ottway is the last one left alive. Trudging through a clearing with most of his equipment gone, he suddenly finds himself surrounded by wolves. The Alpha advances from the pack. The excitement builds as he empties the contents of a back pack. He kisses a picture of his wife, tapes a bunch of empty bottles to his left hand and smashes them against a rock. Then he tapes a combat knife to his right.

Oh, boy, this is it!

Ottway reaches inside himself and recites a short poem composed by his father. Then we see his eyes, now devoid of fear. The Alpha lunges forward, Ottway does the same, and …

THAT’S IT?!?!?!

I couldn’t believe it, but that was the end. There was nothing of that scene in the movie that wasn’t in the trailer. If fact, I got online when we got home and checked out the trailer again. They actually show you a little bit more in the trailer than they do in the film! Talk about false advertising! Where was my glorious man-wolf battle?? CARNAHAN! You lied to me!

A few hours later, I read that there was one more scene after the credits, in which we see Ottway and the Alpha, both on the ground. The Alpha is apparently dying; Ottway’s condition is harder to determine. Even if I had stayed for this scene, it would have been small consolation. That only means that Carnahan didn’t consider it a forgone conclusion that Ottway had no chance. So why didn’t I get to see him fight?

Anyway, for those of you that are complaining “you spoiled the ending,” I did so because, really, there was no ending. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen the ending. All of it. I did you a favor, saving you time and money. And for those of you saying “you missed the point. The wolves are a metaphor for death and the story is really about being brave when death is coming for you …” I can understand that. But this is a movie. It’s based in the visual. What is the point of having a story of internal struggle leading up to a physical confrontation, if you’re not going to show the confrontation — especially when it would have been so simple to do! In Jaws, for example, we still have most of the same themes — over coming your fear, a bond that developes between three very different men when they face death together, etc. But we get the pay-off at the end. We get to see what happens. We get to see the symbol of fear and death destroyed. And even if said symbol had won, it would have been a more satisfying ending than that of The Grey.  And in any case, if all the movie was trying to do was tell a story about philosophical ideals, why was it sold to me as an action/adventure picture?

I can contemplate the meaning of life without buying a ticket, thank you.

[Rating:1.5/5]

Courageous

The Kendrick Brothers of Sherwood Bible Church are at it again. No doubt hoping to match their home run of Fireproof of 2008, they’ve shifted their focus from taking on divorce to attacking fatherlessness in America. We’re still in Albany, Georgia, but this time, instead of following the heroics of the Albany Fire Dept.,  we’re on patrol with the Dougherty County Sheriff’s Dept. (Interesting that, Albany being a city of 77,000, it doesn’t seem to have its own police force, but I guess they had to trim the cast somewhere.)

The Kendricks have ramped the action up a notch with this one. Right at the beginning, we see Fireproof’s Ken Bevel, now playing Nathan Hayes, stop for gas, only to have his truck stolen by a dew-rag clad gang-banger (T.C. Stallings, a devoted husband and father in real life). He throws himself half-way through the driver’s window, and we are treated to a fist-fight with Nathan hanging out the window at 30 miles an hour. The movie eventually leads up to a climactic scene with guns blazing. In between is more action, more than a few laugh-out-loud moments, and a heart-felt message about how crucial a father is to a child’s development, and how those without fathers often become dew-rag clad truck thieves.

The story follows Deput. Hayes, a recent transfer to the department, three other Deputies, Adam Mitchell (Alex Kendrick), Shane Fuller (Kevin Downes), and David Thompson (Ben Davies), and Javier Martinez (Robert Amaya), a rarely employed construction worker, and their families. Javier breaks his back to provide for his family and eventually finds employment working on Adam’s house. He then becomes part of the group. David is the rookie of the squad who’s holding in a shameful secret. He has a daughter around three years of age, whom he has never met, and whose support he had not contributed a dime to. (Apparently, the Georgia Division of Child Support Services was vaporized along with the Albany P.D.) Shane struggles to be a dad to his son when he only sees him every other weekend.  Adam dotes on his daughter but refuses to join his son for the father-son 5K. And Nathan and his wife, Kayla (Elenor Brown), struggle to fend off the “saggy-pants boys” interested in their teenage daughter.

A tragedy eventually forces these men to reevaluate what they are doing as fathers. The story dives into Christian kitsch for awhile. Adam comes up with a written resolution and the five families actually hold a ceremony with their pastor in which they dramatically recite it. In a similar vein, we later see Nathan take his daughter to a very expensive restaurant (below), where he, again with great ceremony, presents her with a “promise ring.” Yeah, I know. I chortled at this scene, too, but then I found out my wife had very specific plans for me to do exactly that with our daughter one day.

But for all the kitsch, the film really is trying, and trying to do far more than just entertain. The problems with Courageous mainly serve to highlight the fact that most movies just fill themselves up with explosions and car wrecks and expect you to buy a ticket. Courageous sets the bar much higher, and does come close to clearing it.

There was a time when I would have been unable to enjoy this movie. I can enjoy it now largely because I have a wonderful wife, who makes my life very sweet. That said, there are still some key points of this film I can’t help but take issue with. A lot of the film’s attitude is summed up when Nathan delivers the curmudgeonly line “If fathers just did what they were supposed to, half the junk we see on the street wouldn’t exist.” This seems to be the mantra of conservatives and liberals alike: it’s all men’s fault. But if you look at the history of America over the last 40 years or so, men have not been the only – or even the primary – culprit of the breakdown of the family. History does not tell of a movement of men throwing off their responsibilities to society. We don’t see crowds of men burning their undergarments and demanding the right to kill their children. We do, however, see women doing all these things.

In the U.S. today, more than two thirds of all divorces are initiated by the woman. And why not? The feminist political machine has tilted the legal game board of divorce ridiculously toward the woman’s pockets. (Please note: Every man in Iowa should carefully read chapters 236 and 598 of the Iowa Code before he even thinks about getting emotionally attached to a woman. As for the other states, talk to a lawyer there.) Millions of children in the U.S. grow up without fathers because their mothers want it that way.

My first year out of law school, I worked in a family law firm. I never had a man in my office who didn’t care about his children. Most of my clients were there because they were having to fight just to see their children. The slant in family court is based on more than gender stereotypes.  The judicial community includes many territorial lionesses. A child is power, and they are not about to share it. Conversely, male judges are of the old way of thinking, in which men are expected to take the lumps and bear the weight of the world on our shoulders without complaint. This combination of liberal women and conservative men, not only in court, but also in society, is a frustrating dynamic. While women are exhorted about their rights, men are flagellated with our supposed responsibilities. Lawyers aren’t supposed to get emotionally involved, but I couldn’t help feeling the pain my clients felt. Commanded to be fathers by the right, yet torn from their children by the left; commanded to “be a man,” yet emasculated.

Courageous never addresses any of this, failing to live up to its name. The Kendrick brothers buckle under the pressure of political correctness. Too afraid to take women to task for their desertion, like so many before them, they turn on men.

It’s hard to stay angry at a movie that has this much heart, and is actually trying to make a difference in the world. But while it’s a valiant effort, another Fireproof it is not.  Fireproof met

Actor-director Alex Kendrick takes aim at bad fathers.

people squarely where they were at. There’s no reason 3 billion men couldn’t have connected with Caleb Holt, the fire chief who shows valor in the work place, but doesn’t know how to love his wife. The story eventually shows that, only by first receiving the unconditional love of God can Caleb show unconditional love to the flawed and sinful woman he lives with. It would actually  have been fairly simple for Courageous to do the same thing. Shane Fuller is a character that millions of men would easily connect with, including unbelievers. He is divorced. He wants to be a father to his son, but, as he explains it, he only gets him every other weekend, after his mother has filled his head with her toxic opinions of him. He wants to provide for his son, but almost a third of his paycheck is swallowed by alimony. Shane should have been the lead role of this movie! He could have been the Caleb Holt of Courageous. How can Shane, and other men, be the kind of fathers God wants them to be, despite the obstacles? How can God help them to raise their kids right despite what they have  to deal with? This was a golden opportunity for the Kendricks to win the hearts of their intended audiece. Beating up on men will do nothing to fix the family. Ministering to broken men where they are at will do a lot more.

Sadly, Shane is confined to a small role as the bad cop we’re not supposed to like, and Courageous preaches to the choir. Most of the focus is on Adam, Nathan and Javier, who all have perfect wives, straight out of a Christian fantasy.

Overall, I recommend seeing Courageous. There’s a lot of great moments I didn’t want to spoil here. The fact that I can even disagree with it shows it had more of a brain than most movies. It’s not easy to make a movie that ministers. I still laughed and I was still swept along by the story. It was good to see Christian cinema taking another (mostly) positive step.

Number four at the box office in October of 2011. High-five!

[Rating:3.5/5]

Chronicle

I’m waiting for the ‘found-footage’ fad to die out.  The format has been stretched so thin that Chronicle busies itself trying to bypass the roadblock of hopping around the perspectives of different cameras circling the action.  Since the filmmakers have bolder ambitions than shaking their cameras around, I still lost myself in this fresh superhero diversion.  The film’s young director, Josh Trank, is getting a lot of buzz for his first main feature here, and for a 26-year-old filmmaker, a lot of credit is actually due.

Even though I’m not the least bit interested in the visual style, the story of Chronicle nudged me into the theater.  The film opens with high school teen Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan), a loner outcast locked in his bedroom with his video camera while his drunken father pounds on the door with thunderous shouts at the boy.  His father is a laid off firefighter.  His mother is bed-ridden and dying from a serious medical condition.  If Andrew has anyone on his side, it’s his cousin, Matt (Alex Russell), who invites him to a party one night, despite serious objections to Andrew toting his video camera around.

Andrew has decided he wants to document his daily life on film, which is hard to imagine considering his abusive treatment at home and uninteresting social life at school.  Apparently it gives him a time-occupying outlet.  At the rave party, Matt and his friend Steve (Michael B. Jordan) find Andrew and request he follow them into the woods to check out a sizable hole in the ground.  Andrew’s light on his camera could help them out.  With their ears pressed to the ground, the trio hear a bass-thumping rumble coming from the hole, so they naturally decide to make a descent inside to discover what’s lurking underneath.  As they wander their way down, they stumble upon… well, something—not of this world.  It appears large, glowing, crystallized, with an alien entity inside.  The video feed flickers.  Something is happening to the boys and their noses begin to bleed heavily.

The next we see of them, their not fully aware of how they got out of the ground.  Oh, and they have telekinetic powers.  The guys starting tossing baseballs around with their minds and constructing Lego buildings.  Their abilities increase as they ‘stretch the muscle’ of their power, pulling pranks on helpless shoppers, moving parked cars across parking lots, and delivering the ultimate magic act at their school talent show.  Once the boys learn they can fly, they realize their level of invincibility. Andrew captures it all on film, but his home life and awkward social interactions begin to distance him from his new-found friends.  His tragedy unfolds over a series of events that push him further and further into darkness and alienation.

In retrospect, Chronicle could be described as simply another X-Men story.  Boys gets powers.  They use them.  One of the boys turns to the dark side.  This creates a divide.  Who will protect humanity?  Is humanity worth protecting when you’ve become a higher species, or an ‘apex predator’ as the film calls it?  Max Landis penned the script, and he admirably combines realistic high school behavior with the deeper elements that give Chronicle the authenticity (despite some glaring holes) it needs to capture our attention over a brisk 80 minutes.  The story is never as deep as it think it is, but I’m guessing that’s why the filmmakers opted for the documented footage angle.  The audience doesn’t expect layers of depth if they are witnessing the events ‘as they really occurred’.

I personally would have enjoyed the film more had the filmmakers chosen to go deeper.  This sci-fi thriller is all surface details, comical interactions, and bloated action sequences.  Don’t get me wrong—it works.  But I can’t help thinking there is a larger, grander, better movie hidden inside this ambitious little cheapie that makes the most of its budget and young talent.  Chronicle is a fun little ride featuring unrealized potential.  Young viewers will eat it up.  And while the film may be satisfactory, I wanted more.

[Rating:3.5/5]